Homosexuality is a Choice(Not!)

[þsy]

Feminism attempts to identify gender performativity, recognising that we ascribe to gendered identities and that it's not 'natural' behaviour.

Um, no, it doesn't. "Gender performativity" is a very particular "theory" within a particular strain of feminism. As a gender studies student you should be aware that there are several strains (and a few 'waves') of feminism. And that is one particularly silly one.

You're right here, it's actually a collection of movements under one banner, both historical and contemporary. But amongst all contemporary strains, you'll find academics discussing performativity, whether they subscribe to the 'post-modern' label themselves or not (and thus it seemed like an interesting point to bring up)

And phyto, I have no time for someone who disregards an entire philosophical paradigm - especially one so fundamental to contemporary academia - as 'jibber-jabber'.

We already covered this in that music thread, didn't we. Here again you're scolding someone for being dismissive and disregarding a philosophical paradigm by yourself being dismissive and disregarding another philosophical paradigm. See how that works? Well, you're typical of postmodernists, anyway, so yeah, well done there, chap; you're well on your way to good marks. Performative contradiction in full display, a hallmark of postmodernism.

In a typical 'post-modern'-esque style, I'm going to say that actually you're wrong - I try to listen and consider other opinions no matter they are, and certainly don't want to slot myself into any particular label or category you have for me.

So if you think about it, by simply posting one link to one article, which is written from a post-modern perspective, you've then not only dismissed the article, and anything else I have subsequently written, but have also assumed that I myself identify completely with this philosophical paradigm, and that that therefore means that I too am dismissive of other paradigms, which are allegedly typical of post-modernists (which is something I do not necessarily subscribe to). A lot of assumptions, "well done there, chap"

Short version: In this day and age, any philosophy worth consideration must begin with, be grounded in, and follow from a scientific understanding of reality. Otherwise, it's just as useless as religious or other supernatural faith claims; indeed, there's quite the romance between postmodernism and flakey new agers.

What do you mean useless? Why does it need to be grounded in a scientific understanding of reality? (Not making point here, just interested)

Also, Dawkins may be a great scientist, but the guy's social commentary is a joke. But maybe if you do like him, let's not go into that

[chrisd]

My take on the post-structural/post-modern philosophy movement is that it has had its useful days. It originated in the 1960s. That really is a long time ago. The usefulness of it is that it served as a protest against large and heavy narrative in any form or shape. And there are many such large and heavy narratives that deserve to be protested (or 'deconstructed') against. E.g., positivist philosophy has had a so strong following that even in psychology there has been a strong "behaviourist" movement where any terminology not directly based on observable behaviour has been rejected. At the other extreme there is psychoanalysis where there is a huge theory only very loosely based on anything observable that can be used to make up stories behind any kind of psychological development in any person. Both are a large and heavy narrative and that has the disadvantage of losing much of the necessary coupling to reality. Another example would be fundamentalist christianity where each and every human problem is solved by trusting jesus and you are "wrong" if that does not solve your particular problem. Actually, I would also classify Dawkins as a salesman of large and heavy narrative. In this case atheistic large and heavy narrative. It is unclear to me why Dawkins' rejection of the notion of "God" would not also apply to other abstract/metaphysical concepts such as "Love". Obviously, one can sell more books by rejecting the former rather than the latter.

Nowadays it is unclear to me what is to be gained from jumping on the postmodern bandwagon. Society has taken in the lessons that come from this philosophy movement and I am not sure there is still that much to be learned from it anymore. Who is still reading Derrida nowadays anyway?

[þsy]

Who is still reading Derrida nowadays anyway?

I think that deserves an 'F4' hahaha,

I agree with you a fair bit chrisd, but I think to say that society has soaked up all it has to offer is a bit of a generalisation - a lot of stuff has made an impact and been positive, but so much hasn't. To go back to feminism briefly; the current 'LAD' culture which is certainly prominent in the UK (and maybe elsewhere) is a horrible and terrible culture that has arisen in the last few years, and suggests steps backwards rather than steps forwards in relation to what post-modernism has to say about feminism (when I say LAD, I don't mean boys being idiots, I mean something very specific that you'll either be aware of or not, depending on how far afield it goes).

What I've taken from post-modernism is the basic principle that these meta-narratives are usually comprised of micro-narratives, which are all based on specific discourses and ideas, which need to be unravelled to get a fuller flavour of the way things are. I think that this way of thinking is very useful, and prevents you from making assumptions or basing arguments on the 'truth' which is actually the result of other things rather than just 'the way it is'. It helps garnish a better understanding of the root of ideas/thoughts/practices. Other than that, I wouldn't say my thinking is particularly 'post-modern'!

As for Dawkins, I agree chrisd, he's just another salesman. The atheist movement is a good one, bringing people to question what they've based their beliefs on, and serves to provide another side of the 'argument', if you wanna call it that. However, he himself serves some pretty bad arguments, and he can't seem to remove his personal hatred for belief in God. It's hard to ignore the fact that it's also a bit gloomy - the troubles with religion are obvious, and despite all it's positive impacts around the world, it also has its negative impacts. However, the belief in some form of God, having some faith in that belief - there's nothing wrong with that. The truth is, atheism is a non-profit organisation

[sinewav]

To say what you really want to say, you need to use three circles.

Ah thanks for pointing that out. This is a case of me spending too much time trying to be cute rather than paying attention to what I am doing. Although, I think it's interesting to say everyone is a little bi-sexual whether they admit it or not -- even if it's only 1% of their sexual makeup.

However, the belief in some form of God, having some faith in that belief - there's nothing wrong with that.

Sure, if that's where the story ended. If people kept their faith to themselves, we wouldn't have this backlash against religion. That's actually one of the points Dawkins makes (you wouldn't know because I'm sure you've only read negative commentary about him and not his works). His take on religious faith is: If you want to believe nonsense, that's perfectly fine, but don't expect other's to believe it, follow it, or die for it.

The truth is, atheism is a non-profit organisation

Yeah... That's not "truth." It looked like you were trying to have a smart discussion, then you go say something like that? Oh well, I guess I'll sit back and wait for some more word-play...

[syllabear]

http://www.ndstudies.org/images/venn-modified.gif

This is the sort of Venn diagram you'd need to portray homosexuals, tron players and heterosexuals (respectively). It even leaves out asexuals (anything inside the box, but outside the circles).

Edit: Sorry you'll have to follow the link since its a gif and those were banned...

[INW]

<nerd mode>

He knows how to read a Venn diagram.

He does. The diagram says: there are people who have sex with the same gender. There are people who have sex with the other gender. There are those who do both, and those are exactly the people who play Tron. Every Tron player is bi, every bisexual person plays Tron. Do you see a single pure gay or straight person in the diagram playing Tron? No? Or a single bisexual person not playing Tron? Sure, it wanted to say something different, but that's what it really says. To say what you really want to say, you need to use three circles.</nerd mode> Then, of course, it loses all meaning, so for the intended purpose, that still was the right diagram to draw, even though it is wrong.

A venn diagram can be split into two circles. The first circle can list people who have sex with the same gender and the other circle can have people who have sex with a different gender. They both can also list characteristics of the two and they may both list "plays tron". However, when the circles are combined to create this diagram, the part that both have in common is green colored. Therefore, people who play tron are both gay and straight.

I think you read it in reverse. At least in North Carolina they teach you to read the middle section as "Similarities" and the other sections as "Differences".

The only place the circle overlap are the only things that are similar.

The Venn Diagram sine created is perfectly fine.

I think what made it confusing are the "titles". The 2 larger circles have titles while the center oval has a characteristic listed and not a title.

[syllabear]

Well according to Wikipedia (the worst place to get information, and yes I should stop going there) there is no mention of similarities or differences.

INW: you are interpreting all three as titles of the areas, which is not the case: While sine probably did intend for each of the circles to be entitled "has sex with same gender" and "has sex with different gender" he probably did not envisage the middle section to be titled "plays tron", but to contain that subset of people (refer back to wikipedia article, which really eloquently explains the concept of these diagrams and set represenatation).

An easy way to imagine this is to put other subsets in the overlapped area, for example tennis players, gardeners, etc. and then put some more in each of the other circles, i.e. construction workers, tea drinkers, etc.

[INW]

Yes, that's what I figured. The "sex phrases" should be titles and the "tron phrase" should be information or the similarity in the circle. ya.

[chrisd]

Actually, I do not agree with the labels "has sex with same gender" and "has sex with different gender". I was gay long before I had sex with anyone besides myself (which, I suppose, could qualify as "has sex with same gender", but that is another matter). In fact at all times when I am not having sex I could, theoretically, equally well describe my situation as "Chris does at the moment not have sex with a guy" or as "Chris does at the moment not have sex with a woman". However, the first one is much more true than the second one. The second one has the answer "ew... no... of course not...." while the first one has the answer "ah... yes... that would be hot.... (imagining hot scenes is occuring right here....)". Also, a celibate can be gay or straight in this sense. A gay celibate is not having sex with the same gender and a straight celibate is not having sex with the other gender.

Also, the idea of a scale (a la Kinsey) between heterosexuality and homosexuality is something that I doubt. Kinseys scale runs from 0 to 6. The existence of not such a small percentage of people like me who find, when they look at their Kinsey score card, a number somewhere between 5.96 and 6.00 casts doubt on the whole scale. The endpoints of it are more like "fixed points" and/or attractors then poins that coincidentally also happen to occur on the scale.

[þsy]

However, the belief in some form of God, having some faith in that belief - there's nothing wrong with that.

Sure, if that's where the story ended. If people kept their faith to themselves, we wouldn't have this backlash against religion. That's actually one of the points Dawkins makes (you wouldn't know because I'm sure you've only read negative commentary about him and not his works). His take on religious faith is: If you want to believe nonsense, that's perfectly fine, but don't expect other's to believe it, follow it, or die for it.

Actually, I have read 'The God Delusion', as well as watching a few interviews and debates which other religious/non-religious people. He's clearly intelligent, but a lot of his arguments seem just as flawed as the religious ones. There are other figureheads in the atheist movement who I have more time for, he just isn't one of them, in my opinion

The truth is, atheism is a non-profit organisation

Yeah... That's not "truth." It looked like you were trying to have a smart discussion, then you go say something like that? Oh well, I guess I'll sit back and wait for some more word-play...

Earlier in that post which you're quoting, I more or less say there's no such thing as 'truth', so it was clearly a bit of a tongue-in-cheek remark, I guess you didn't pick up on it. The sentiment was designed to get across the doom-and-gloom aspect of atheism, but surely you got that bit

[þsy]

Also, chrisd - I've often wondered about the idea of sexuality on a scale. I have a close friend who has recently come out, but he has in the past fancied girls, yet he would definitely call himself homosexual over bisexual. I don't like the idea of boxing someone into a category, but from your experience (and anyone elses), does this scale theory bear any weight?

[sinewav]

The sentiment was designed to get across the doom-and-gloom aspect of atheism, but surely you got that bit

I can't imagine what's doom-and-gloom about atheism. I was always under the impression that it was mostly the religious who believed everyone was a sinner and that many of them will be doomed to eternal hell. What's more gloomy than that? All the atheists I know love puppies and kitties and don't want anyone to get hurt.

[chrisd]

Sure, if that's where the story ended. If people kept their faith to themselves, we wouldn't have this backlash against religion. That's actually one of the points Dawkins makes (you wouldn't know because I'm sure you've only read negative commentary about him and not his works). His take on religious faith is: If you want to believe nonsense, that's perfectly fine, but don't expect other's to believe it, follow it, or die for it.

One often hears that he root of the problem is the faith, but I am just not buying it. I cannot forget good old C.G. Jung. "It is totally clear that the moral ability of a group of people is inversely proportional to the size of the group." It really is the group effect. I have been bashing clans for years for a reason. "Clans may not be that bad if they consist of one or fewer members". The quote by C.G. Jung also applies, besides religions, to countries, obviously. The foreign policy of the US, for one thing, can be appropropriately described as "insanely violent". This has something to do with the size of the country. The fact that the catholic church is currently enjoying a state that is appropriately described as "moral bankruptcy" has something to do with the size of it.

[Lucifer]

I've only got two responses because I'm skipping the most-modernism part and relentlessly dismissing both sides.

I disagree, that is an entirely moral position you've taken.

Then you need to read John Locke, whose philosophy of natural rights is the entire basis (to the point of plagiarism) of the US system of government. He even goes so far as to argue that there is no such thing as morality, iirc. One of the founding blocks of civilization is that everybody gives up the natural right to infringe upon each other's rights. Without everyone making that sacrifice, the cooperation required to build a civilization doesn't exist and we descend into anarchy. Government exists solely to regulate such things. Etc, yadayada. I believe I've already covered that part, all I've done here is tell you where to find it.

There is no scientifically agreed age, universally, where a person can consent to sex or not.

That's because such an age doesn't exist. Science will tell you when a person has developed enough personal responsibility and intellectual capacity to make an informed decision on whether or not to consent to sex. That's a level of development that varies so much, I've seen people in their early 20s not reach it yet, and even people when they get old (think: Alzheimer's) are no longer capable of consenting.

Law can't work on such a variable, which is why states' ages of consent vary as much as they do.

[Lucifer]

Also, chrisd - I've often wondered about the idea of sexuality on a scale. I have a close friend who has recently come out, but he has in the past fancied girls, yet he would definitely call himself homosexual over bisexual. I don't like the idea of boxing someone into a category, but from your experience (and anyone elses), does this scale theory bear any weight?

Yes, it does. Kinsey's specific scale has problems, as does his data, but there is clearly a range, and it's probably not even a two dimensional scale.

I'm the opposite of your friend. I have fooled around with men, but I don't self-identify as bisexual. I'm heterosexual, and I love my wife. But were I single..... you get the drift.

The problems with Kinsey's research, at this point, are largely irrelevant. It's all been gone over after he did it. What makes him such an important figure is that he did the research to begin with on an extremely taboo subject and started a conversation this country sorely needed, and laid one of the founding blocks for the sexual revolution. I don't want to give him credit for starting the sexual revolution, but I do want to thank him for starting the conversation. It has directly affected my sex life for the better.